Approx price difference between Intel & AMD systems

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price difference between
an AMD system and an Intel system of the same power?

I am thinking of just the processor and mobo.
(I don't think memory depends on processor type)

Is it something like ... "Intel systems cost 25 to 30 percent more than an
equivalent AMD system"?


'
22 answers Last reply
More about approx price difference intel systems
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

    Come on, man............ google that


    "Franklin" <franklin_lo@mail.com> wrote in message
    news:9568A54DC392731E75@130.133.1.4...
    > Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price difference
    between
    > an AMD system and an Intel system of the same power?
    >
    > I am thinking of just the processor and mobo.
    > (I don't think memory depends on processor type)
    >
    > Is it something like ... "Intel systems cost 25 to 30 percent more
    than an
    > equivalent AMD system"?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > '
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

    "Franklin" <franklin_lo@mail.com> wrote in message
    news:9568A54DC392731E75@130.133.1.4...
    > Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price difference
    > between
    > an AMD system and an Intel system of the same power?
    >
    > I am thinking of just the processor and mobo.
    > (I don't think memory depends on processor type)
    >
    > Is it something like ... "Intel systems cost 25 to 30 percent more than an
    > equivalent AMD system"?
    >
    >
    >

    Considering JUST mainboard and processor: At the high end, there is no
    difference. In the mid-range (say about 3 - 3.2G or 3000 - 3200+), there is
    no significant difference.

    HOWEVER, as recently as last month, Athlon 64 mainboards were (on average)
    starting around thirty bucks more for name-brand boards with the same
    features as similar name-brand boards for Intel P4 chips.

    As all other components (RAM, power supply, video card, hard drives, optical
    drives, etc.) is identical, you are looking at really NO cost difference to
    build either way. And you are looking at really NO performance difference,
    either. There are a few gaming benchmarks where the Athlon 64 chips are a
    little faster than similarly priced P4 chips. But overall, the majority of
    benchmarks slightly favor the P4 chips. But even that's misleading, as the
    difference is trivial.

    You will get the same "power" either way, for about the same TOTAL PRICE TO
    BUILD. However, if you are a bargain hunter, there are some really nice P4
    motherboards out right now that are high quality, name-brand and CHEAP. So
    if you shop smartly, you might get slightly better bang for buck building P4
    at the moment. -Dave
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

    Franklin wrote:

    > Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price difference between
    > an AMD system and an Intel system of the same power?
    >
    > I am thinking of just the processor and mobo.
    > (I don't think memory depends on processor type)
    >
    > Is it something like ... "Intel systems cost 25 to 30 percent more than an
    > equivalent AMD system"?

    Depends on what you look at. Socket 939 Athlon 64 and FX CPU's are
    pretty expensive. Socket 754 chips are not so pricey. Athlon XP chips
    are a serious bargain compared to Prescotts.
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc Franklin <franklin_lo@mail.com> wrote:
    > Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price difference between
    > an AMD system and an Intel system of the same power?

    > I am thinking of just the processor and mobo.
    > (I don't think memory depends on processor type)

    > Is it something like ... "Intel systems cost 25 to 30 percent more than an
    > equivalent AMD system"?

    Last time I did this, AMD was about 100 Euro cheaper than Intel for the
    same power. That was Athlon XPs 2800+ end of last year.

    The figures depend strongly on what CPU you want, what mainboard _and_
    what kind of memory.

    Arno
    --
    For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
    GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    You get a better value with AMD which is good for budget systems.
    Intel is the better choice for intense video editing. Given the two
    with the same overall processing power, I believe Intel will run
    cooler (is that right?).
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Phisherman wrote:
    > You get a better value with AMD which is good for budget systems.
    > Intel is the better choice for intense video editing. Given the two
    > with the same overall processing power, I believe Intel will run
    > cooler (is that right?).

    Until Prescott, yes. Prescott is an oven.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

    "Dave C." wrote:

    > "Franklin" <franklin_lo@mail.com> wrote in message
    > news:9568A54DC392731E75@130.133.1.4...
    > > Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price difference
    > > between
    > > an AMD system and an Intel system of the same power?
    > >
    > > I am thinking of just the processor and mobo.
    > > (I don't think memory depends on processor type)
    > >
    > > Is it something like ... "Intel systems cost 25 to 30 percent more than an
    > > equivalent AMD system"?
    > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    > Considering JUST mainboard and processor: At the high end, there is no
    > difference. In the mid-range (say about 3 - 3.2G or 3000 - 3200+), there is
    > no significant difference.

    Not quite. When chips that benchmark similarly are considered, there might be
    huge differences. For example, for Doom 3, an Athlon 64 3500+($330)
    outperforms an Intel Pentium 4 3.4 ghz EE at $990 by a large margin.

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7

    For Business Winstone 2004, an Athlon 64 3200+($183) beats a
    Pentium 4 3.4 ghz EE($990). an Athlon XP3000+($95) also beats
    a Pentium 4 3.2 ghz($220).

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6


    >
    >
    > HOWEVER, as recently as last month, Athlon 64 mainboards were (on average)
    > starting around thirty bucks more for name-brand boards with the same
    > features as similar name-brand boards for Intel P4 chips.

    Socket 939 motherboards will get less expensive as the demand increases.
    The new 90 nm Athlon 64 chips need a socket 939 motherboard.

    >
    >
    > As all other components (RAM, power supply, video card, hard drives, optical
    > drives, etc.) is identical, you are looking at really NO cost difference to
    > build either way. And you are looking at really NO performance difference,
    > either.

    Not quite.

    > There are a few gaming benchmarks where the Athlon 64 chips are a
    > little faster

    A little faster?

    > than similarly priced P4 chips.

    For some games it takes a Pentium 4 at triple the price to come close in
    performance.

    > But overall, the majority of
    > benchmarks slightly favor the P4 chips.

    LOL! The majority of pc usage is for business applications, not video
    editing.

    > But even that's misleading, as the
    > difference is trivial.

    Trivial? If you compare the performance of a $95 Athlon XP3000+ running
    business applications and a Celeron 2.7 ghz which is close in price, the
    performance diferrence will not be trivial. If you compare the performance
    difference of an Athlon 64 3000+($145) to a $151 Pentium 4 2.6 C
    running business software, you will see a very large difference.

    >
    >
    > You will get the same "power" either way, for about the same TOTAL PRICE TO
    > BUILD.

    Not quite. Of course if you average in video editing benchmarks and Dragon
    Naturally Speaking benchmarks into the mix, then it will help the P4 look
    better, however for the huge number of people who never run those applications,
    it doesn't make much sense.

    > However, if you are a bargain hunter, there are some really nice P4
    > motherboards out right now that are high quality, name-brand and CHEAP.

    Motherboards for an Athlon XP are probably even cheaper. The vast majority
    of computer usage is for running business applications.

    > So
    > if you shop smartly, you might get slightly better bang for buck building P4
    > at the moment.

    LOL! It doesn't make sense to spend so much more on a Pentium 4 just to
    save $25-30 on the motherboard. A Pentium 4 that benchmarks similarly
    to an Athlon 64 for a person's important business applications or the games
    they want to play might be double or triple the cost of the Athlon 64. Spending
    so much extra for the processor just to save $30 or less on a motherboard is
    silly.


    > -Dave
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

    "> LOL! It doesn't make sense to spend so much more on a Pentium 4 just to
    > save $25-30 on the motherboard. A Pentium 4 that benchmarks similarly
    > to an Athlon 64 for a person's important business applications or the
    > games
    > they want to play might be double or triple the cost of the Athlon 64.
    > Spending
    > so much extra for the processor just to save $30 or less on a motherboard
    > is
    > silly.

    I've repeatedly proven you wrong in the past, but it looks like you need to
    be spanked again. Again, for the umpteenth time, I will use your favorite
    web site to prove you wrong. If you look at one or two specific benchmarks,
    you can state with absolute certainty that an Athlon64 chip of equal cost
    will be slightly faster than an P4 chip for that specific benchmark. But if
    you look at ALL the benchmarks, and have half a brain, you will conclude
    that AMD and Intel are evenly matched.

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=1956&p=17
    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=1956&p=18

    Now go dream up some more lies to slander Intel with, as nobody's buying
    your old ones. -Dave
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

    On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 13:36:22 -0400, "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:

    >
    >"Franklin" <franklin_lo@mail.com> wrote in message
    >news:9568A54DC392731E75@130.133.1.4...
    >> Is there a rough rule of thumb which indicates the price difference
    >> between
    >> an AMD system and an Intel system of the same power?
    >>
    >> I am thinking of just the processor and mobo.
    >> (I don't think memory depends on processor type)
    >>
    >> Is it something like ... "Intel systems cost 25 to 30 percent more than an
    >> equivalent AMD system"?
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >Considering JUST mainboard and processor: At the high end, there is no
    >difference. In the mid-range (say about 3 - 3.2G or 3000 - 3200+), there is
    >no significant difference.
    >
    >HOWEVER, as recently as last month, Athlon 64 mainboards were (on average)
    >starting around thirty bucks more for name-brand boards with the same
    >features as similar name-brand boards for Intel P4 chips.
    >
    >As all other components (RAM, power supply, video card, hard drives, optical
    >drives, etc.) is identical, you are looking at really NO cost difference to
    >build either way. And you are looking at really NO performance difference,
    >either. There are a few gaming benchmarks where the Athlon 64 chips are a
    >little faster than similarly priced P4 chips. But overall, the majority of
    >benchmarks slightly favor the P4 chips. But even that's misleading, as the
    >difference is trivial.
    >
    >You will get the same "power" either way, for about the same TOTAL PRICE TO
    >BUILD. However, if you are a bargain hunter, there are some really nice P4
    >motherboards out right now that are high quality, name-brand and CHEAP. So
    >if you shop smartly, you might get slightly better bang for buck building P4
    >at the moment. -Dave
    >
    XP2700 £65
    AMD64 2800 £82
    Intel 2.8 £97


    XP3000 £90
    AMD64 3000 £93
    Intel 3.0 £104


    XP3200 £105
    AMD64 3200 £120
    Intel 3.2 £130


    AMD are always cheaper

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/print/athlon64-3000.html

    AMD has my vote

    Harry
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

    Don't be an automoton and just "think" that intel is on par with amd
    when it comes to a gaming machine. I will use the site you just
    quoted that compares intels best (that cost 100's of dollars more)
    with amds best and mid levels running Doom 3. If you have half a
    brain (which you probably don't since you'll obviously spend 100's
    more for a brand with inferior performance) you'll see that amd athlon
    64 3400+ has better performance than intel's p4 3.4 extreme edition.
    By the way the athlon 64 3400+ can be bought for around $275 on
    pricewatch the intel p4 3.4 ee for $989.00 on pricewatch. Also you'll
    be able to run 64 bit programs when they come out, instead having to
    upgrade like you will with intel. I'm all about performance compared
    to cost and right now intel is getting their ass handed to them by
    amd.

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7

    "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote in message news:<2r88nmF16i5ltU1@uni-berlin.de>...
    > "> LOL! It doesn't make sense to spend so much more on a Pentium 4 just to
    > > save $25-30 on the motherboard. A Pentium 4 that benchmarks similarly
    > > to an Athlon 64 for a person's important business applications or the
    > > games
    > > they want to play might be double or triple the cost of the Athlon 64.
    > > Spending
    > > so much extra for the processor just to save $30 or less on a motherboard
    > > is
    > > silly.
    >
    > I've repeatedly proven you wrong in the past, but it looks like you need to
    > be spanked again. Again, for the umpteenth time, I will use your favorite
    > web site to prove you wrong. If you look at one or two specific benchmarks,
    > you can state with absolute certainty that an Athlon64 chip of equal cost
    > will be slightly faster than an P4 chip for that specific benchmark. But if
    > you look at ALL the benchmarks, and have half a brain, you will conclude
    > that AMD and Intel are evenly matched.
    >
    > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=1956&p=17
    > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=1956&p=18
    >
    > Now go dream up some more lies to slander Intel with, as nobody's buying
    > your old ones. -Dave
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

    "Dave C." wrote:

    > "> LOL! It doesn't make sense to spend so much more on a Pentium 4 just to
    > > save $25-30 on the motherboard. A Pentium 4 that benchmarks similarly
    > > to an Athlon 64 for a person's important business applications or the
    > > games
    > > they want to play might be double or triple the cost of the Athlon 64.
    > > Spending
    > > so much extra for the processor just to save $30 or less on a motherboard
    > > is
    > > silly.
    >
    > I've repeatedly proven you wrong in the past, but it looks like you need to
    > be spanked again. Again, for the umpteenth time, I will use your favorite
    > web site to prove you wrong. If you look at one or two specific benchmarks,
    > you can state with absolute certainty that an Athlon64 chip of equal cost
    > will be slightly faster

    More than slightly. It might take a Pentium 4 at double or triple the price
    to equal it.

    > than an P4 chip for that specific benchmark. But if
    > you look at ALL the benchmarks,

    Why should someone do that? Who runs all types of software? A business
    user who runs only business software doesn't care how fast a processor
    is at video editing.

    > and have half a brain, you will conclude
    > that AMD and Intel are evenly matched.
    >
    > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=1956&p=17
    > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=1956&p=18
    >
    > Now go dream up some more lies to slander Intel with, as nobody's buying
    > your old ones. -Dave
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

    On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 10:45:08 -0400, "Dave C."
    <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:

    >
    >"> LOL! It doesn't make sense to spend so much more on a Pentium 4 just to
    >> save $25-30 on the motherboard. A Pentium 4 that benchmarks similarly
    >> to an Athlon 64 for a person's important business applications or the
    >> games
    >> they want to play might be double or triple the cost of the Athlon 64.
    >> Spending
    >> so much extra for the processor just to save $30 or less on a motherboard
    >> is
    >> silly.
    >
    >I've repeatedly proven you wrong in the past, but it looks like you need to
    >be spanked again. Again, for the umpteenth time, I will use your favorite
    >web site to prove you wrong. If you look at one or two specific benchmarks,
    >you can state with absolute certainty that an Athlon64 chip of equal cost
    >will be slightly faster than an P4 chip for that specific benchmark. But if
    >you look at ALL the benchmarks, and have half a brain, you will conclude
    >that AMD and Intel are evenly matched.
    >
    >http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=1956&p=17
    >http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=1956&p=18
    >
    >Now go dream up some more lies to slander Intel with, as nobody's buying
    >your old ones. -Dave
    >
    >


    Nope, the P4 depends on the most current versions of
    applications for it's performance points, while practically
    nothing has been optimized for A64 yet. Indeed, an XP3000
    handily beats a P4 3.2GHz at most software running today.

    In other words, to get the performance from a P4, you're not
    buying just a P4, you're buying hundreds of $$$ worth of
    software too.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

    "J Case" <josephcase@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:7bcff396.0409201050.125da725@posting.google.com...
    > Don't be an automoton and just "think" that intel is on par with amd
    > when it comes to a gaming machine.

    Who said that? Athlon 64 chips are slightly better for gaming. Intel is
    hardly getting their ass handed to them by AMD, though. That is, unless all
    you care about is gaming. -Dave
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

    "Dave C." wrote:

    > "J Case" <josephcase@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:7bcff396.0409201050.125da725@posting.google.com...
    > > Don't be an automoton and just "think" that intel is on par with amd
    > > when it comes to a gaming machine.
    >
    > Who said that? Athlon 64 chips are slightly better for gaming. Intel is
    > hardly getting their ass handed to them by AMD, though. That is, unless all
    > you care about is gaming. -Dave

    Stop the nonsense. Compare chips similar in price and look at the benchmarks.
    AMD processors outperform comparably priced Intel processors for gaming,
    business applications, mathematical calculations, and many other types of
    applications. The Pentium 4 chips excell at running some 32 bit multimedia
    software. So what. Those who need to run that type of software will probably
    soon be interested in running 64 bit software. Have you seen benchmarks
    on how Intel's X86 64 bit processors perform running 64 bit software?

    http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2163&p=1
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

    AND when THEY (whomever THEY are) are interested, will about the time
    the 64bit software market will be ripe. Please test all the unknowns
    now, so when I am ready, I'll pick up an Intel 64....


    "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
    news:414F3942.7F2A27DF@netscape.net...
    >
    >
    > "Dave C." wrote:
    >
    > > "J Case" <josephcase@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > > news:7bcff396.0409201050.125da725@posting.google.com...
    > > > Don't be an automoton and just "think" that intel is on par with
    amd
    > > > when it comes to a gaming machine.
    > >
    > > Who said that? Athlon 64 chips are slightly better for gaming.
    Intel is
    > > hardly getting their ass handed to them by AMD, though. That is,
    unless all
    > > you care about is gaming. -Dave
    >
    > Stop the nonsense. Compare chips similar in price and look at the
    benchmarks.
    > AMD processors outperform comparably priced Intel processors for
    gaming,
    > business applications, mathematical calculations, and many other
    types of
    > applications. The Pentium 4 chips excell at running some 32 bit
    multimedia
    > software. So what. Those who need to run that type of software will
    probably
    > soon be interested in running 64 bit software. Have you seen
    benchmarks
    > on how Intel's X86 64 bit processors perform running 64 bit
    software?
    >
    > http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2163&p=1
    >
    >
    >
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

    >
    > Stop the nonsense. Compare chips similar in price and look at the
    > benchmarks.
    > AMD processors outperform comparably priced Intel processors for gaming,
    > business applications, mathematical calculations, and many other types of
    > applications.

    OK, according to pricewatch, same price range at the moment would be:

    P4 3.2 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3200+ or

    P4 3.4 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3400+

    Beyond that range, you can pay up to several hundred dollars for either an
    Intel or AMD chip, but hardly anyobody gives a damn about those chips, as
    hardly anybody spends as much on a processor as they do on the entire rest
    of their system combined.

    So the P4 3.2/3.4 and Athlon64 3200/3400 would be the best indicators of who
    has the best bang for buck, at the moment.

    Gaming: OpenGL: The Intel chips are much faster
    Gaming: DX8: The AMD chips are faster, no doubt about it
    Gaming: DX9: It's virtually a tie, as the AMD chips are two to three
    TENTHS of a percentage point faster.
    So on the gaming benchmarks, that's one win for Intel, one win for AMD and
    one tie.
    GAMING OVERALL: TIED

    Business Applications: Office Applications: Intel blows AMD away
    Business Applications: Internet Content Creation: Intel blows AMD away
    Business Applications: Overall: Intel blows AMD away

    Video Encoding: This one is so lopsided, AMD should have thrown in the
    towel before entering the ring. Intel wins by a landslide.

    Audio Encoding: Again, Intel wins by a landslide

    Synthetic Benchmarks: (PC Mark 2004): Here, Intel blows AMD away on both
    *CPU* and memory benchmarks

    Actually, I'm glad you called me out on this issue. I was previously under
    the impression that AMD and Intel were pretty well matched. But on
    reviewing the benchmarks again, I'd have to conclude that AMD is only a good
    idea if you plan to do nothing but DX8 gaming with your computer.
    Otherwise, you are wasting your money buying an AMD chip.

    Again, even at the same price for CPU, an Intel system can be cheaper to
    build, as the P4 boards are more mature at this point, and thus there are
    better bargains to be found. Considering that an Intel system will likely
    be cheaper to build and WILL perform better on all benchmarks except DX8,
    it's kind of a no-brainer as to which chip to build with, at the moment.

    Intel is better than AMD, at the moment. The only way AMD could change that
    would be to drop their prices by 30% or better. -Dave 9/20/04

    http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040322/index.html

    Yeah, I know you are going to blast Tom's Hardware. It's funny that their
    benchmarks agree with tests run by all the other hardware guide web sites,
    though . . . including anandtech.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

    "Dave C." wrote:

    > >
    > > Stop the nonsense. Compare chips similar in price and look at the
    > > benchmarks.
    > > AMD processors outperform comparably priced Intel processors for gaming,
    > > business applications, mathematical calculations, and many other types of
    > > applications.
    >
    > OK, according to pricewatch, same price range at the moment would be:
    >
    > P4 3.2 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3200+ or

    $220 vs $185. not exactly the same.

    >
    >
    > P4 3.4 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3400+

    $282 vs $255. A bit closer.

    >
    >
    > Beyond that range, you can pay up to several hundred dollars for either an
    > Intel or AMD chip, but hardly anyobody gives a damn about those chips, as
    > hardly anybody spends as much on a processor as they do on the entire rest
    > of their system combined.

    Many gamers buy more expensive processors. If someone spends
    $600 on a video card, they can easily spend $300-$600 on a cpu.
    Those doing scientific calculations also often tend to buy high
    performing processors.

    >
    >
    > So the P4 3.2/3.4 and Athlon64 3200/3400 would be the best indicators of who
    > has the best bang for buck, at the moment.
    >
    > Gaming: OpenGL: The Intel chips are much faster

    Wrong!

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=10

    >
    > Gaming: DX8: The AMD chips are faster, no doubt about it
    > Gaming: DX9: It's virtually a tie, as the AMD chips are two to three
    > TENTHS of a percentage point faster.
    > So on the gaming benchmarks, that's one win for Intel, one win for AMD and
    > one tie.

    Wrong. Two wins for AMD and one tie.

    >
    > GAMING OVERALL: TIED

    Not quite.

    >
    >
    > Business Applications: Office Applications: Intel blows AMD away

    What have you been smoking? Even An Athlon XP3000+ beats a
    Pentium 4 3.2 ghz running business applications.

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6

    >
    > Business Applications: Internet Content Creation: Intel blows AMD away

    Not quite. In Content Creation Winstone 2004, an Athlon 64 3000+
    beats a Pentium 4 3.2 ghz.

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6

    >
    > Business Applications: Overall: Intel blows AMD away
    >
    > Video Encoding: This one is so lopsided, AMD should have thrown in the
    > towel before entering the ring. Intel wins by a landslide.

    Intel has the lead here with 32 bit software, however with the Athlon 64
    one can switch to 64 bit software. Here is an article comparing an Opteron
    to a 64 bit Xeon(expensive!) when runnning 64 bit software.

    http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2163&p=1


    >
    >
    > Audio Encoding: Again, Intel wins by a landslide

    Care to provide some benchmarks?

    >
    >
    > Synthetic Benchmarks: (PC Mark 2004): Here, Intel blows AMD away on both
    > *CPU* and memory benchmarks

    Who buys a computer to run synthetic benchmarks.

    >
    >
    > Actually, I'm glad you called me out on this issue. I was previously under
    > the impression that AMD and Intel were pretty well matched. But on
    > reviewing the benchmarks again, I'd have to conclude that AMD is only a good
    > idea if you plan to do nothing but DX8 gaming with your computer.

    LOL! Most PCs are used to run business software. A Pentium 4 3.2 ghz
    can't even keep up with an Athlon XP3000+ in Business Winstone 2004.
    The Athlon XP is less than half the price of the P4.

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6

    >
    > Otherwise, you are wasting your money buying an AMD chip.
    >
    > Again, even at the same price for CPU, an Intel system can be cheaper to
    > build, as the P4 boards are more mature at this point, and thus there are
    > better bargains to be found.

    > Considering that an Intel system will likely
    > be cheaper to build

    Not quite.

    > and WILL perform better

    Perhaps for video editing and a few other obscure applications,
    but not for what most people are running most of the time.

    > on all benchmarks except DX8,
    > it's kind of a no-brainer as to which chip to build with, at the moment.
    >
    > Intel is better than AMD, at the moment.

    LOL!

    > The only way AMD could change that
    > would be to drop their prices by 30% or better

    LOL!. If Intel drops the P4 3.2 ghz to below the price of an Athlon XP3000+
    (around $95) , then it would be competitive for running
    business software.

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6

    If Intel drops the Pentium 4 3.4 ghz EE to below $255,
    then it would be competitive with the Athlon 64 3400+ for those who
    like playing Doom 3.

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7

    > . -Dave 9/20/04
    >
    > http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040322/index.html
    >
    > Yeah, I know you are going to blast Tom's Hardware. It's funny that their
    > benchmarks agree with tests run by all the other hardware guide web sites,
    > though . . . including anandtech.
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

    On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 17:13:50 -0400, "Dave C."
    <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:


    >Gaming: OpenGL: The Intel chips are much faster
    >Gaming: DX8: The AMD chips are faster, no doubt about it
    >Gaming: DX9: It's virtually a tie, as the AMD chips are two to three
    >TENTHS of a percentage point faster.
    >So on the gaming benchmarks, that's one win for Intel, one win for AMD and
    >one tie.
    >GAMING OVERALL: TIED

    LOL!
    If only it were that easy.


    >
    >Business Applications: Office Applications: Intel blows AMD away

    No


    >Business Applications: Internet Content Creation: Intel blows AMD away
    >Business Applications: Overall: Intel blows AMD away

    No

    >
    >Video Encoding: This one is so lopsided, AMD should have thrown in the
    >towel before entering the ring. Intel wins by a landslide.

    Actually, this is the only place Intel ever makes any
    significant ground against AMD.


    >
    >Audio Encoding: Again, Intel wins by a landslide

    Nope, unless you only count new apps, which raise price of
    the P4.


    >Synthetic Benchmarks: (PC Mark 2004): Here, Intel blows AMD away on both
    >*CPU* and memory benchmarks
    >
    >Actually, I'm glad you called me out on this issue. I was previously under
    >the impression that AMD and Intel were pretty well matched. But on
    >reviewing the benchmarks again, I'd have to conclude that AMD is only a good
    >idea if you plan to do nothing but DX8 gaming with your computer.
    >Otherwise, you are wasting your money buying an AMD chip.

    You must be a shill.
    Only someone using applications proven to be P4 optimized,
    that is, spending MORE money for these apps, can expect a P4
    to even be competitive with an Athlon, let alone be faster
    at anything save a few particular situations like video
    editing, and even then, if ignoring older codecs, if
    recompression is not done or new codecs purchased or bundled
    with editing suite.


    >Again, even at the same price for CPU, an Intel system can be cheaper to
    >build, as the P4 boards are more mature at this point, and thus there are
    >better bargains to be found. Considering that an Intel system will likely
    >be cheaper to build and WILL perform better on all benchmarks except DX8,
    >it's kind of a no-brainer as to which chip to build with, at the moment.

    Sadly, you are biased in favor of Intel.
    There ARE good reasons to buy intel, IF you have specific
    apps proven to benefit. ASSUMING that performance of a P4
    on those specific benchmarked apps will translate into a
    performance benefit on DIFFERENT or OLDER apps, is foolish.

    Someone who's pocketbook is fattened by ultimate
    productivity may easily be able to justify buying newest
    applications, but it must be factored into the cost of a P4,
    if you expect the performance seen in the benchmark.


    >Intel is better than AMD, at the moment. The only way AMD could change that
    >would be to drop their prices by 30% or better. -Dave 9/20/04

    Funny that, most everyone else knows that Intel is
    scrambling to keep up. They can take the market back quite
    easily, that is, the share they formerly held, by simply
    dropping prices and relying on the perception of their
    name-brand "quality", until they have more competitive
    products that don't double as space-heaters.

    >
    >http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040322/index.html
    >
    >Yeah, I know you are going to blast Tom's Hardware. It's funny that their
    >benchmarks agree with tests run by all the other hardware guide web sites,
    >though . . . including anandtech.


    Actually there is a disturbing trend where reviews simply
    assume companies and private users will buy newest versions
    of all their software over and over again, even when it
    costs hundreds of $$$ (for single user) or many thousands
    for a company, even in support alone.

    So add up the total cost of the software being benchmarked
    in those reviews.. probably over $1000, perhaps much higher,
    then what's the total cost for that P4?
  19. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

    "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
    news:v6nuk012m3g9spom36h87pp4tct7m6voap@4ax.com...
    > You must be a shill.
    > Only someone using applications proven to be P4 optimized,
    > that is, spending MORE money for these apps, can expect a P4
    > to even be competitive with an Athlon, let alone be faster
    >
    > Sadly, you are biased in favor of Intel.


    That is really funny, considering THIS is what you responded to:

    (I wrote earlier)

    "I am a HUGE AMD fan. So it's
    incredibly ironic that I should feel compelled to defend Intel against
    repetitive, undeserved LIES posted on this ng and others about how AMD chips
    are both faster AND cheaper than Intel chips. At any particular point in
    time, that might be true, but it hasn't been true for quite a while, and it
    isn't true NOW. For anyone who doesn't have their head up their ass, or an
    axe to grind . . ."

    Get thee your head out of your ass and learn to read. Benchmarks don't lie.
    Pricewatch doesn't lie. I'm not biased in favor of Intel. I'm INCLINED to
    be biased in favor of AMD. I can't read the unbiased numbers that ALL the
    hardware-oriented web sites agree with and then conclude that AMD is a good
    buy, at the moment. That is, unless I just wanted to bash Intel and truth
    be damned. Intel is better than AMD, at the moment. That's from the mouth
    of a huge AMD fan. I hope AMD does something to change this soon, and I'm
    optimistic that they will, but at the moment, Intel chips are clearly a
    better deal. -Dave
  20. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

    Dave C. wrote:
    > "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message


    "Paul Otellini, Intel's president, admitted to reporters at the Intel
    Developers Forum, that the company has had "some fumbles" recently and
    acknowledged rival Advanced Micro Devices may be slightly ahead in some
    technologies. But he also suggested the company is ready to grab key
    market opportunities as the next half-billion PC users come online. "


    tinyurl.com/6l7w2


    Willi
  21. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

    On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 19:32:20 -0400, "Dave C."
    <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:

    >
    >"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
    >news:v6nuk012m3g9spom36h87pp4tct7m6voap@4ax.com...
    >> You must be a shill.
    >> Only someone using applications proven to be P4 optimized,
    >> that is, spending MORE money for these apps, can expect a P4
    >> to even be competitive with an Athlon, let alone be faster
    >>
    >> Sadly, you are biased in favor of Intel.
    >
    >
    >That is really funny, considering THIS is what you responded to:
    >
    >(I wrote earlier)
    >
    >"I am a HUGE AMD fan. So it's
    >incredibly ironic that I should feel compelled to defend Intel against
    >repetitive, undeserved LIES posted on this ng and others about how AMD chips
    >are both faster AND cheaper than Intel chips. At any particular point in
    >time, that might be true, but it hasn't been true for quite a while, and it
    >isn't true NOW. For anyone who doesn't have their head up their ass, or an
    >axe to grind . . ."

    Do you feel that you're clever by adding a preface to your
    one-sided argument?

    You were not compelled to do anything, you CHOSE to place
    all weight of the decision making process on modern apps
    without any consideration of what the user, uses.

    If we are considering "ultimate performance" at any price,
    they by all means, let's all get SMP boxes... whatever our
    hearts desire, but realistically, most purchases have some
    kind of budget, and quoted prices for a P4 must include all
    elements necessary to attain the performance advantage used
    to contrast it to an AMD chip.


    >Get thee your head out of your ass and learn to read. Benchmarks don't lie.

    No, but you omit the truth if claiming anyone should
    consider benchmarks of apps/versions they don't use.

    >Pricewatch doesn't lie. I'm not biased in favor of Intel. I'm INCLINED to
    >be biased in favor of AMD. I can't read the unbiased numbers that ALL the
    >hardware-oriented web sites agree with and then conclude that AMD is a good
    >buy, at the moment. That is, unless I just wanted to bash Intel and truth
    >be damned. Intel is better than AMD, at the moment. That's from the mouth
    >of a huge AMD fan. I hope AMD does something to change this soon, and I'm
    >optimistic that they will, but at the moment, Intel chips are clearly a
    >better deal. -Dave
    >

    The vast majority of people do not buy new applications when
    their current apps work fine, you have no clue which CPU is
    better for any use beyond those benchmarked. As I mentioned
    previously, if productivity is tied to income, it may be
    justifed to buy apps shown to benefit from a P4. As for
    everyone else, the total price of a P4's performance is
    often NOT the price of the CPU alone.

    Claiming a P4 is "better" while not knowing what it'll be
    used for (ignoring your nonsense about DX8), is pointless.

    The REALLY funny part is that you cling to new software
    benchmarks, but ignore that 64 bit software is around the
    next corner.
  22. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc (More info?)

    On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 22:21:20 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net>
    wrote:


    >Many gamers buy more expensive processors. If someone spends
    >$600 on a video card, they can easily spend $300-$600 on a cpu.
    >Those doing scientific calculations also often tend to buy high
    >performing processors.

    Here I would have to disagree.

    The CPU _IS_ the central processing unit, but that
    distinction does not necessarily distinguish it as being
    most expensive, or parity with the video card when it comes
    to price. Video cards are much more complex than a CPU.

    Taking nVidia's 6800 as an example, since it is industry
    leading at the moment, the GPU can be quite a bit more
    sophisticated, both larger and more powerful, and entire
    card includes VRM funtions delegated to a motherboard for
    the CPU, and memory that is, based on today's market, worth
    in excess of $50 alone. For a gamer, the logical conclusion
    is to spend more on the video card than CPU, always. In
    retrospect, this has always been the case that a gamer
    should never buy the top speed/price CPU unless they already
    have the best video card available (unless their monitor is
    horrible and can only allow low resolutions).
Ask a new question

Read More

Homebuilt Hardware Intel AMD Systems